blowhard wrote:bk1 wrote:blowhard wrote:It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.
Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.
My property supplement calls it a contingent remainder (it doesn't really elaborate on it) but I see how it could be looked at your way. I guess it might depend on how the prof teaches the course.
Yeah, like I said it doesn't even matter anymore so who knows why/how everyone teaches it. In reality it makes no difference whatsoever. I do now recall reading somewhere that the class closes at death (which it obv does for other purposes like which children get) which would make it fail altogether and revert. I don't know why but I was thinking it created an interest in the heirs that would eventually take.
Whose death though? If A dies while B's still alive, the rule of Destructibility of contingent remainder will revert back to O and leave B's heirs nothing. If B dies intestate while A's still alive then vested remainder. If they are both alive then B's heirs have contingent remainder.
ETA: I f__king hate future interest right about now. Why dont they just let everyone fight it out for land?